It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What's your idea on this?
Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Over the years, I've seen countless posts that begin something like "the theory of E=MC2 never made sense. So I have a new theory about how this works."
You've seen those posts.
Now -- I have a question for people: Why is the answer to "this doesn't make sense to me" NOT "Ohboy... I need to learn a bunch of things so I can understand it?" Why is the response "This means it's wrong so I need to construct a new theory that makes it right"?
Why don't they see it as a call to either start learning stuff OR an understanding that there's stuff they probably will never comprehend (like... err.. modular form of weight k for the group (I looked that one up on Wikipedia and no, I don't understand it either))?
What's your idea on this?
Originally posted by pheonix358
Who came up with the theory matters greatly.
Theories are in fact unproven ideas, nothing more.
Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Over the years, I've seen countless posts that begin something like "the theory of E=MC2 never made sense. So I have a new theory about how this works."
You've seen those posts.
Now -- I have a question for people: Why is the answer to "this doesn't make sense to me" NOT "Ohboy... I need to learn a bunch of things so I can understand it?" Why is the response "This means it's wrong so I need to construct a new theory that makes it right"?
Why don't they see it as a call to either start learning stuff OR an understanding that there's stuff they probably will never comprehend (like... err.. modular form of weight k for the group (I looked that one up on Wikipedia and no, I don't understand it either))?
What's your idea on this?
Originally posted by Phage
What's your idea on this?
Learning stuff is hard.
It's much easier to just say something is wrong because "it doesn't make sense" than to demonstrate exactly why it is wrong because to do so one would have to learn something.
It's much easier to make stuff up than to learn something.edit on 9/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)
en.wikipedia.org...
At fourteen he became the apprentice to George Riebau, a local bookbinder and bookseller in Blandford Street.[13] During his seven-year apprenticeship he read many books, including Isaac Watts' The Improvement of the Mind, and he enthusiastically implemented the principles and suggestions contained therein. At this time he also developed an interest in science, especially in electricity. Faraday was particularly inspired by the book Conversations on Chemistry by Jane Marcet.
I don't know where your getting your information from, but where exactly are theories taught as fact?
Originally posted by jiggerj
I will pop in here and conversationally say that I disagree with the Big Bang Theory.
A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena.
Steven D. Schafersman
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jiggerj
It doesn't take much observation (especially by seafaring cultures) to realize the world is not flat.
Faraday...from your source:
en.wikipedia.org...
At fourteen he became the apprentice to George Riebau, a local bookbinder and bookseller in Blandford Street.[13] During his seven-year apprenticeship he read many books, including Isaac Watts' The Improvement of the Mind, and he enthusiastically implemented the principles and suggestions contained therein. At this time he also developed an interest in science, especially in electricity. Faraday was particularly inspired by the book Conversations on Chemistry by Jane Marcet.
He Took the time to learn something and behaved as a proper scientist, designing experiments to test his ideas. It's not quite the same as making things up or just insisting that someone else is wrong. His discoveries didn't just come to him. It took study and work.
Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Originally posted by jiggerj
I will pop in here and conversationally say that I disagree with the Big Bang Theory.
Okay... the Big Bang theory is based on a lot of math (which I don't understand) based on a lot of physics (that I don't understand.)
What is your basis for disagreeing with the BBT? For me, it's "okay... that's their current mode and when they get better instruments or evidence they may change it someday but till then, they know more about this science than I do." So I don't really agree/disagree -- it's more like "this is the current thinking."
You've got some sort of opinion that differs -- is it that you're finding the physics wrong (I really don't understand the equations, myself) or what?
Science in the Western world is flawed. Theories are taught almost as if they are fact. Who came up with the theory matters greatly. Theories are in fact unproven ideas, nothing more.
Why don't they see it as a call to either start learning stuff OR an understanding that there's stuff they probably will never comprehend (like... err.. modular form of weight k for the group (I looked that one up on Wikipedia and no, I don't understand it either))?